Skip to main content

tv   The Daily Show With Jon Stewart  Comedy Central  February 6, 2013 11:00pm-11:30pm PST

11:00 pm
what's up, guys? - what up? - i like you. - i like you too, man. - i'm gonna kill you. - this is where i start to cry. - i'm gonna rape you. - you seem great. - bruckenhiemer, shawn, you are free to go. - oh, thank you, daddy. - [bleep] you. - [bleep] you! - [bleep] you! - [bleep] you! - blow me, bro. - [bleep] hitler. - [laughs] - see ya. - cell phone. - for the hoes. - one gold nail file. - for the toes. - that's it, gents. empty. - come on. - we came in with one more thing in our pockets. - um...i don't know what you guys are talking about. - i did a semester at bart, so i'm a pretty good writer. so the yelp review i'm gonna write about this place
11:01 pm
is gonna be scathing. - his word choice is brilliant. - you're idiots. leave now. - give me my cocaine or i'm gonna have a spaz attack! - so do you guys have, like, good memories? or... - [cracks neck] - bummer. - bruckenhiemer, shawn, you are free to go. [both laugh] - thank you, daddy. - [bleep] you! - [bleep] you! [bleep] you! - [bleep] you! - eat my [bleep]. okay? - [laughs] good at bizness.
11:02 pm
captioning sponsored by comedy central from comedy central's world news headquarters in new york this is "the daily show" with jon stewart. ["daily show" theme song playing] [cheers and applause] >> jon: welcome to "the daily show". my name is jon stewart. good show tonight. tonight's guest ed whitacre he's on as former chairman and c.e.o. of gm and former chairman of board and executive officer at at&t. i'm going to spend the entire interview trying to figure out why i can't get cell service on the west side highway. you know every now and then a report comes out that we killed al qaeda's number three guy from the fifth time from above a missiled robot plane or we missed him and mistakenly hit a factory that makes civilians? [laughter] well, you might wonder: is that okay? >> nbc news has obtained a government document that lays
11:03 pm
out the legal arguement to justify the president's use of drones to kill al qaeda suspects including, in some cases, u.s. citizens. >> jon: u.s. what now? u.s. who? i never thought some of the terrorists could be people on america's got talent. you have to be american to be on america's got talent, don't you otherwise it's cuba's got talent. i bet it's specific about when they can order the killing. >> the killing is allowed if they are leaders of al qaeda and an -- or an associated terror group. >> jon: no worries they won't kill you unless you are part of the al qaeda parent company. al qaeda in iraq, al qaeda in libya, euro al qaeda, chipotle. [ laughter ] oh, really they are not part
11:04 pm
of -- i thought al qaeda bought that from mcdonalds? either way it's delicious. [ laughter ] lest you worry that we're being too general about who we can target and it's too late to cancel your incredibly ill-advised spring break trip to the yemen sandals. [laughter] the leaked document lays out clear limitations of when terrorists can be targeted. we only take these kinds of actions when there's an imminent threat. >> jon: imminent threat. by definition that requires clear evidence to a specific attack on u.s. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future. >> an imminent threat does not require the united states to have clear evidence that a specific attack on u.s. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future. [ laughter ] >> jon: really because that seems like if you did that you
11:05 pm
would have to create a different definition for the word imminent, a broader concept, if you will. >> they use the phrase broader concept of imminent. [ laughter ] >> jon: so imminent threat, in other words imminent or not imminent, broadly speaking. imminent in the gee logical sense. [ laughter ] we can kill an american who is al qaeda or al qaeda adjacent if they pose an imminent danger meaning eventually, i imagine the admissions process to determine who will be accepted into our, for lack of a better term sky miles program, is somewhat string gent including
11:06 pm
due process and oversight. >> without due process, no court, no trialing and relatively little oversight. >> jon: it's an open admissions process. do we at least yell fore! heads up! this is freaking me out a little bit. i would like to see the rest of the memos and i know the administration will show the present documents to us because we have their records on such touchy war on terror global disclosures to go by. >> the justice department has released the bush administration memos that authorized the c.i.a. to use harsh interrogation methods. >> president obama personal lay proved releasing the memos in such detail. >> jon: personally. he invited everyone to the memo release partism it's an invitation. although, ironically, guest list was classified. [laughter] now listen: we know how this
11:07 pm
administration feels about the executive branch withholding memos from congress because of the 2004 on the tortureos. >> will be provide -- torture memos. >> will you provide these to the committee? >> no i will not. >> you are not allowed under our constitution not to answer our questions and that ain't constitutional. [ laughter ] >> jon: by the way that's the name of his one-man off broadway show. ain't constitutional. you should have tagged it with that ain't constitutional mother (bleep). [ laughter ] i think that answers the question of whether the obama biden white house will release the memos detailing in specifics our drone strikes policy. >> will president obama release the memos? >> i have nothing for you on
11:08 pm
alleged memos regarding poe ten sally classified matters. without going into the alleged existence of any particular memo or action i can say that what we can not do is discuss classified operations. >> jon: alleged memos did you just go jedi mind trick on us? these are not the drones you are look for. tell you something carney, you are good but you are no sith lord. yes, master. i don't know what is worse, the alarmingly ambiguous guidelines for the strike program or the fact thawr saying we might not have written these down in memo form. surely there are memos on this. >> there are legal memos written by the justice department on this killing just as there were legal memos under the bush administration about the use of torture. >> jon: that's got to hurt.
11:09 pm
though obviously this is different from the bush administration secret war policy in that i assume the democrats have written them on recycled paper. [ laughter ] you know they are very responsible environmentalists. [ laughter ] what were the obama administration's reasons for letting the bush torture memos out? >> the truth is that because these were in the public domain. >> jon: okay to make material public when everybody knows about it and we're covered there because the norkts released this memo on drone strikes. we're good. release them. what snels. >> even the last administration has revealed the most serious aspects of this. >> jon: precedent number two the administration has fessed up to doing it and obama has done everything short of taking out a billboard about the drone programs. i think we are okay there, too. i think we're doing pretty g. and what is the last reason? >> there was no legal rational for keeping them classified.
11:10 pm
>> jon: oh. so we don't he mind you knowing about (bleep) we don't do once we don't do it nix we told you we would be transparent we just
11:11 pm
11:12 pm
[cheers and applause] >> jon: boom! welcome back.
11:13 pm
[cheers and applause] big news from across the upon the, the country that we have a special relationship with just had an historic vote in special relations. >> now to gay marriage, an issue has fueled controversy in many countries. today it was british lawmakers who entered the debate. the house of commons voted overwhelmingly in favor of legalization. >> the ayes to the right 400, the nos to the left 175. the ayes have it. the ayes have it. >> jon: 50 points to griffindor. even when the uk is extending civil rights beyond the what we do in this country they do it by yelling a golden scenter. losing the 18th century wig, too soon, gay marriage, bring it on. the vote wasn't even split along party lines. >> behind that big majority a
11:14 pm
big torrey split. 126 supported proposal but more 136 were against and 41 more couldn't be persuaded to vote with the government and and tained. >> jon: abstinence is the only 100% effective method of not getting blamed for (bleep). it went on for five years. let's flare a supporter. >> it's also time to take the next step for equality, allow gay and lesbians the chance to mar yeah if they choose to do. >> jon: no you didn't. equality (bleep) you just threw down. you brought a steamg tea pot of earl tea on your head. let's hear the opposition. >> there are many issues this country needs to deal with. it's irrelevant and should not be pursued through the house. >> jon: that's it then?
11:15 pm
we're busy at the moment, no? my brother that is not how the stem the rising tied of civil rights. the institution of marriage has been weakened in this country. it's harmful to the end of the republic. >> jon: that's the end of world vibe you are looking for. give it another ago. >> mixed sex marriaged have decreased considerably in the netherlands. >> jon: that's your argument. who gives a (bleep) except for fans of my big fat dutch wedding. you know what is miss something in you need an all-power being invoked. >> several millennia ago the words were written a man should cleave to his wife. i wasn't our idea, it was god's idea. >> jon: yeah, you gotta love cleaving, man. there was a girl i want to
11:16 pm
cleave the (bleep) out of it. she ended up cleaving the captain of the football team and i ended up cleaving myself. [ laughter ] what are we talking about again? oh, right. look torreys i know the stakes are lower over there because britain doesn't have hurricanes every time two dudes kiss but try it once more. this time put some feeling into it. >> i'm going to oppose the bill although on balance i accept the fact that evidence from the polls probably indicate there's a majority in the country who favor the change. >> jon: 100 points from hufflepuff. you call yourselves conservative. not one mention of the slippery slope of the pedophile orgies. >> it could be between any ten people. >> if it's based on love, it
11:17 pm
okay to have three people mary. >> why not allow an urchg toll marry his niece. >> if you had a section for your horse, i guess could you bury your horse. >> jon: and then you and your horse could make a super bowl commercial together. [cheers and applause] look, wasn't anyone in parliament willing to take them to crazytown. >> you are a miserable [yelling] >> jon: thank you! that's what we -- what's that? that's not from the same-sex marriage debate. that's the debate over a mishandling of a classroom building. it's almost as if british conservatives wanted gay marriage to pass. i know why the only thing more fabulous than a royal we hadding -x,yy5
11:18 pm
11:19 pm
11:20 pm
amy: excuse me, do you have all the popular smart phones? blue shirt: we do. amy: at&t? blue shirt: yes. amy: t mobile? blue shirt: sure. amy: sprint? blue shirt: mhmm. amy: verizon? blue shirt: got it. amy: do you make commission on this? blue shirt: no. amy: do you have all the plans? blue shirt: we do. amy: does this make my head look big? blue shirt: no. amy: can you activate all of these? blue shirt: yes we can. amy: can you transfer my contacts? blue shirt: yes. amy: are you sure? blue shirt: yes. amy: i'm pretty popular. blue shirt: no problem. amy: you're good. what number am i thinking of? blue shirt: nine. amy: yes. vo: reserve a $50 best buy gift card and get it when you're ready to upgrade your phone. only at best buy.
11:21 pm
[cheers and applause] >> jon: welcome back. my guest tonight the former chairman and c.e.o. of at&t and
11:22 pm
gm. his book is called" american turnaround, reinventing at&t and the way we do business in the u.s.a. please welcome ed whitacre. hello. [cheers and applause] thank you for joining us. >> thank you. >> jon: so you actually ran gm -- you were asked to run it post bailout. in the bailout they called you and said, hey, man, what are you up to? come on in. >> they called me and said we're going to emerge from bankruptcy, will you come run gm. >> jon: in that moment what were you doing at that time? >> nothing. [ laughter ] >> jon: so how did you weigh those options? nothing, gm, you went with gm. >> i went with gm. you know, i didn't know much. >> jon: you had only run at&t, so -- let me ask you a question one of the big issues for gm and
11:23 pm
the taxpayer bailout was that private money would not have been able to bail them out, that the government had to step in. is that true at that time? >> that's true. nobody stepped up with money from the private sector. >> jon: so that is true? >> that is true. >> jon: so i wasn't a socialist takeover from the getgo? it was not. nobody stepped up with private money. >> jon: it just turned into one. hold on a second. let me ask you this: what about after the government put money in it and they started to turn things around, could there have been an ipo at that time that could have raised the -- what did we put in $43 billion? >> about $50 billion. >> jon: i always round down. >> it's a big number. >> jon: did -- if they had done an ipo earlier could the taxpayer have gotten their money back, maybe a little nice profit
11:24 pm
there? i know they did an ipo for half of that? >> had we done the ipo and the government sold its entire share, we the taxpayer would have gotten more back but we're on the path to get it all back. couldn't do an ipo earlier than we did because he you have to se financials, is gm making s money? not making money? how is it going? is it going to survive? how are the vehicles? you couldn't do ill earlier. >> jon: let me ask you a question: how are their vehicles? >> the best. >> jon: now, why didn't they do that before? [laughter] why did they wait until they got bankrupt? [laughter] sorry that's ridiculous. that ipo thing that is interesting to me because -- so in that ipo why didn't we do it? did the administration not want
11:25 pm
their money back at that time, they wanted to wait a little bit? >> they didn't want to sell all their stock because they didn't. why, you have to ask them, i don't know. >> jon: judging from their record, i don't know that they are going to tell me. [ laughter ] would you have liked to have -- if you were running us, would you have sold at that ipo? >> i would have, yes. >> jon: you think they didn't sell at the ipo because they wanted to have influence or they didn't trust in the decision to do it? they didn't think it would work out so they just picked run or they want aid hand in running gm? >> you know, they were great. they let us at gm run gm. we got no interference from the government. it was terrific. they were great partners. they just let us bring it back. we all worked together. we got very little assistance, very little help -- we got none. they let us do it. >> jon: i have to tell you: i
11:26 pm
think a great partner in business would be somebody that gives you $50 billion and doesn't say anything after that. >> it was great. >> jon: i would like a partner like that. >> it was great. >> jon: they didn't -- did they put pressure on gm to say we want more economical cars. we want the chevy volt -- we want to make that or the -- >> the volt. >> jon: we want to make that a centerpiece or that was a decision made within gm. >> that was a gm decision. companies have a responsibility to explore new technologies and do things with all the discussion about climate and environment. that was done in gm and it's a great vehicle. >> jon: right, right. so you are happy with the arrangement? >> yeah, they let us do it. >> jon: when you went in there, how difficult for you? you had not run a car company previously? [laughter] >> never. >> jon: you are the most genial guy that has run these
11:27 pm
companies. there's a bunch of guys there 20 years, 30 years, they've been working hard. you walk in and you've run a company but it's at&t. are they mad at you? are they mean to you? how do you get their trust, respect and enthusiasm? >> i asked what went wrong at gm. one of the answers was we didn't do anything wrong, the economy got us. it was interesting i said it didn't get a lot of other car companies, you know so why did it pick on us. >> jon: where did the meeting go from there? >> sort of downhill from there. [ laughter ] >> jon: right. what was your due diligence center field how long did you spend there gaining the information you needed to start making decisions to reorganize the company? >> i was appointed chairman in august, not c.e.o. i became c.e.o. in december. i spent the time from august to december studying the company.
11:28 pm
>> jon: and how long did it take -- it was -- you write a lot about how it was organized in an ak ten trick way, in a way that you did not think was rational. >> right. it was matrix management to the hilt. everybody reported to everybody else and nobody reported to anybody and nobody had a boss. it was bureaucratic and confused. >> jon: no accountability. job one was the accountability. do you feel like you could turn around any company? do you feel like there's a methodology to it that would work on anything? >> well, i think i could make it better, yes. i think that's better. you give them responsibility, authority and you hold people accountable and participate in it together. things get better. people are the best asset. >> jon: tell me more about these people you speak of?
11:29 pm
>> that's any people. >> jon: i like the sound of it. do you have a couple minutes to stick around? sure. >> jon: america's turnaround it's on the